It gets more complicated than that. I've had some access to see how Hollywood studios encode movies for DVD. At least when it comes to big Hollywood movies where they care about the quality of the end product, the process is very much manually done.

Largely all of the tools used are proprietary. The encoding software is proprietary. They have a person who makes a choice about how each scene is compressed. They manually add compression and decrease compression to maximize the picture quality.

That process is very far different from how Apple is creating video for iTunes or how Netflix will encode for its own streaming.

My over all point being. They may wind up more or less at the same point. How they get there is very different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-range

I'm aware of that, but the profiles typically used for streaming actually make tradeoffs that result in lower image quality, not improve it. If I remember correctly they use less efficient entropy coding to allow better error correction on lost packets, and there are more constraints on encoder features, bitrates and image sizes etc. All of this to set a reasonable baseline that streaming decoders can adhere to so they don't have to implement every bit of the complete H264 spec (which is huge).

You're making a big deal out of calibration and it's irrelevant. That suggests strongly that you're playing the "I'm better than you" game based on snobbery rather than facts.

The reason that calibration doesn't matter is that if you have pixelation in the streamed video, it will be pixelated regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not. If you have banding, it will have banding regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not.

It's nice that your wife can tell the difference (or at least wants you to think she can tell the difference - which is understandable given your snobbery). It's also irrelevant. Millions of people are happy with DVD quality, so it's good enough for a large fraction of the population. If Apple wants to offer 1080p, it's up to the individual consumer whether to buy it or not - you don't get to decide for anyone else.

Being that you are the smartest person you know (since we can insult each other now)- You would know that banding is much more visible on darker colors than lighter colors. So- if your TV wasn't calibrated correctly, and wasn't as bright as it should be, you would see banding much more prominently. In addition, you adjust sharpness when you calibrate. If sharpness is too high, it can exaggerate artifacts or even create them. You could have a Blu Ray that had no Halo or Ghosting artifact that showed, but because your TV isn't properly calibrated- it appears you do. This has nothing to do with the content of the Blu Ray, it is all in your poorly calibrated TV. To claim that calibration has nothing to do with visible artifacts is incorrect. Plain and simple.

But, of course, as smart as you are, you already knew that.

But while you're calling me snobby- I mentioned a $20 Blu Ray that you can buy earlier in this thread- again, I'll mention it- World of Wonder (WOW) from Disney. I believe most people can purchase a $20 Disc- but of course, that would make them snobs too since they would be able to have a pricey and luxurious $20 disc that only the best can afford. Congrats on sounding like a douche.

How many threads do I have to make you look like on idiot before you just stop responding?

Being that you are the smartest person you know (since we can insult each other now)- You would know that banding is much more visible on darker colors than lighter colors. So- if your TV wasn't calibrated correctly, and wasn't as bright as it should be, you would see banding much more prominently. In addition, you adjust sharpness when you calibrate. If sharpness is too high, it can exaggerate artifacts or even create them. You could have a Blu Ray that had no Halo or Ghosting artifact that showed, but because your TV isn't properly calibrated- it appears you do. This has nothing to do with the content of the Blu Ray, it is all in your poorly calibrated TV. To claim that calibration has nothing to do with visible artifacts is incorrect. Plain and simple.

But, of course, as smart as you are, you already knew that.

But while you're calling me snobby- I mentioned a $20 Blu Ray that you can buy earlier in this thread- again, I'll mention it- World of Wonder (WOW) from Disney. I believe most people can purchase a $20 Disc- but of course, that would make them snobs too since they would be able to have a pricey and luxurious $20 disc that only the best can afford. Congrats on sounding like a douche.

How many threads do I have to make you look like on idiot before you just stop responding?

Oh, maybe just one.

No one said that buying BR made you a snob. But the attitude that BR is the only fit format to watch and anyone who doesn't spend a fortune calibrating a TV does.

No one said that buying BR made you a snob. But the attitude that BR is the only fit format to watch and anyone who doesn't spend a fortune calibrating a TV does.

No one ever said Blu-ray is the only fit format to watch. iTunes, Netflix, etc. all have their place and can co-exist. The problem is that people keep trying to compare Blu-ray and streaming/digital downloads in far less than ideal conditions and claiming it's "nearing" the quality of Blu-ray or that the difference is marginal at best. That's simply not true any way you look at it.

Where the argument now is on streaming/downloading being good enough that the mass market could choose it as a viable option despite the fact that Blu-ray has better quality.

Those who advocate for Blu-ray are working so hard to advocate because they know the quality gap is small enough to edge the mass market towards streaming/downloading as their preference.

Also the reason why Hollywood is bending over backwards to lock digital download copies into bolstering Blu-ray sales. Given the choice most people who just choose the digital download and forgo the Blu-ray disc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supreme

No one ever said Blu-ray is the only fit format to watch. iTunes, Netflix, etc. all have their place and can co-exist. The problem is that people keep trying to compare Blu-ray and streaming/digital downloads in far less than ideal conditions and claiming it's "nearing" the quality of Blu-ray or that the difference is marginal at best. That's simply not true any way you look at it.

And the title of that article is "Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous Birther*Litigation". Even when your wrong, proven wrong, and everyone knows you're wrong. "You" still aren't wrong.

So your point is that you're not capable of reading past the headline?

He was fined only because the judge had previously ordered him to stop filing litigation on the matter. That makes it a contempt issue, not a penalty for filing a frivolous suit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Blu-ray has the edge on quality. No need to keep arguing that point.

Where the argument now is on streaming/downloading being good enough that the mass market could choose it as a viable option despite the fact that Blu-ray has better quality.

Those who advocate for Blu-ray are working so hard to advocate because they know the quality gap is small enough to edge the mass market towards streaming/downloading as their preference.

Also the reason why Hollywood is bending over backwards to lock digital download copies into bolstering Blu-ray sales. Given the choice most people who just choose the digital download and forgo the Blu-ray disc.

Exactly. For many, many people, DVD is good enough and certainly streamed 1080p is more than good enough. All the people screaming "you can't even compare them" are obviously trying to show off how great they are compared to all of us normal folks.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

It gets more complicated than that. I've had some access to see how Hollywood studios encode movies for DVD. At least when it comes to big Hollywood movies where they care about the quality of the end product, the process is very much manually done.

Largely all of the tools used are proprietary. The encoding software is proprietary. They have a person who makes a choice about how each scene is compressed. They manually add compression and decrease compression to maximize the picture quality.

That process is very far different from how Apple is creating video for iTunes or how Netflix will encode for its own streaming.

My over all point being. They may wind up more or less at the same point. How they get there is very different.

Which brings us back to one of the points I made very early on in this topic: for the final ouput quality of a video, only the following variables matter: codec, encoder, bitrate. What you are describing is better encoding (apparently optimized manually, which I find very surprising since encoders have very sophisticated algorithms to optimize encoding, that probably beat a human 9 out of 10 times). Since Apple can encode iTunes content with exactly the same encoder and codec for 720p and 1080p, and encoder and codec can be the same as used for Blu-Ray discs, only one factor that matters remains, which is bitrate.

Adding all of this together, there is no way iTunes content can come close to Blu-Ray, which can go over 20 times the bitrate as iTunes for complex scenes.

Which brings us back to one of the points I made very early on in this topic: for the final ouput quality of a video, only the following variables matter: codec, encoder, bitrate. What you are describing is better encoding (apparently optimized manually, which I find very surprising since encoders have very sophisticated algorithms to optimize encoding, that probably beat a human 9 out of 10 times). Since Apple can encode iTunes content with exactly the same encoder and codec for 720p and 1080p, and encoder and codec can be the same as used for Blu-Ray discs, only one factor that matters remains, which is bitrate.

Adding all of this together, there is no way iTunes content can come close to Blu-Ray, which can go over 20 times the bitrate as iTunes for complex scenes.

I have to agree with your math. But...
Yesterday we watched some movies and tv shows in 1080 on our new and just delivered AppleTV3 (came at 730 am). We were blown away by the quality. The videos and sound were spectacular. The video was ready to play in no more than 5 seconds after purchase too, which hasn't changed for us even with the higher resolutions provided. The high quality of the 1080p content on iTunes definitely means that we will never buy another bluray disc. A task already reserved for only the most stellar/blockbuster videos released anyway. btw, the last bluray purchase was avatar upon release in 2009 so it's been a while... It is not worth the effort no matter how easy some describe the process. The truth is that even at 720p, the convenience of iTunes rentals and purchases have made physical copies obsolete in this household.
Another bonus to this system is the streaming we can do of our purchases, and I do not have to maintain storage and back-up of content which is very expensive and a pain. I've got bigger fish to fry...
We have owned all genre of apple tv since the first release, and we were always very pleased with the 720p videos from iTunes. In fact we have had many guests comment on how amazing the video quality was at 720 on these devices. Some thought there was no way a video could look or sound any better than the videos we watched from apple. Mind you I do have an above average set-up here for movies and sound/music. 55" tv with an in ceiling speaker systems and amplifiers from speaker craft. But the video part is what most all people would comment on if asked about the quality of a movie. And if you have a 1080p tv then size/dimension of tv is about the only thing that matters after that, forget the sound too, 99% people don't know shit from apple butter about sound quality. If the sound has clarity, then its great...
now to craigslist that obsolete blu-ray player. Maybe i can get $25 for that $300 machine before the masses realize it's antiquated and cumbersome purpose.

Which brings us back to one of the points I made very early on in this topic: for the final ouput quality of a video, only the following variables matter: codec, encoder, bitrate. What you are describing is better encoding (apparently optimized manually, which I find very surprising since encoders have very sophisticated algorithms to optimize encoding, that probably beat a human 9 out of 10 times). Since Apple can encode iTunes content with exactly the same encoder and codec for 720p and 1080p, and encoder and codec can be the same as used for Blu-Ray discs, only one factor that matters remains, which is bitrate.

Adding all of this together, there is no way iTunes content can come close to Blu-Ray, which can go over 20 times the bitrate as iTunes for complex scenes.

Once again, your argument is flawed because you want to make an arbitrary definition of 'come close'. For many, many, many people, even DVD is close enough to Blu-Ray that they can be compared. In fact, it's only the geek fringe that wants to insist that if it's possible to see any difference at all that you can't make the comparison because streamed 1080p is worthless.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Once again, your argument is flawed because you want to make an arbitrary definition of 'come close'. For many, many, many people, even DVD is close enough to Blu-Ray that they can be compared. In fact, it's only the geek fringe that wants to insist that if it's possible to see any difference at all that you can't make the comparison because streamed 1080p is worthless.

Aren't DVD sales and rentals still trumping Blu-ray even though most TVs sold are HD? And what about Netflix, cable/sat, and all other video streaming sites that are much more popular than any optical media. Bottom line: Convenience trumps quality in almost all instances.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Once again, your argument is flawed because you want to make an arbitrary definition of 'come close'. For many, many, many people, even DVD is close enough to Blu-Ray that they can be compared. In fact, it's only the geek fringe that wants to insist that if it's possible to see any difference at all that you can't make the comparison because streamed 1080p is worthless.

Did you read anything I wrote except my statement iTunes 1080p doesn't come close? I think I've explained at least 3 times that I already see a huge quality difference myself when looking at video that has 3 times the bitrate of iTunes 1080p, and a Blu-Ray source of the same movie. This is not some kind of geek fringe or some argument based on theory, but a real-life example. I also said this is on a pretty average-size TV and audio setup.

Saying that for some people 'even DVD is close enough to Blu-Ray' is almost a joke, if that's your only argument, then why are you even using Apple products and not some cheap-ass knockoff that happens to get the same work done, just more frustratingly. If you lower your standards enough, anything is 'good enough', why stop at DVD if VHS is 'good enough' for many people?

You seem to have taken the argument from 'iTunes content doesn't come close to Blu-Ray content' to 'iTunes content is crap' or 'iTunes content is unwatchable', but that's not the point. I have no problem watching DVD content or low-quality video streams, as long as the content itself is worth watching. But that doesn't mean the video quality is irrelevant or all of a sudden 'almost as good' as something else which is clearly better.

Did you read anything I wrote except my statement iTunes 1080p doesn't come close? I think I've explained at least 3 times that I already see a huge quality difference myself when looking at video that has 3 times the bitrate of iTunes 1080p, and a Blu-Ray source of the same movie. This is not some kind of geek fringe or some argument based on theory, but a real-life example. I also said this is on a pretty average-size TV and audio setup.

Saying that for some people 'even DVD is close enough to Blu-Ray' is almost a joke, if that's your only argument, then why are you even using Apple products and not some cheap-ass knockoff that happens to get the same work done, just more frustratingly. If you lower your standards enough, anything is 'good enough', why stop at DVD if VHS is 'good enough' for many people?

You seem to have taken the argument from 'iTunes content doesn't come close to Blu-Ray content' to 'iTunes content is crap' or 'iTunes content is unwatchable', but that's not the point. I have no problem watching DVD content or low-quality video streams, as long as the content itself is worth watching. But that doesn't mean the video quality is irrelevant or all of a sudden 'almost as good' as something else which is clearly better.

You have to stop trying to sound logical, have actual proof, and have reason when you speak to jrag. Because he doesn't listen to any of it. He is the Ostrich of all Ostriches- he puts his head in the sand, and doesn't pay attention to the truth around him.

A barometer is simple- you take 100 people in a room, and you have them watch a DVD, iTunes 1080p, and a Blu-Ray- all of the same scenes in the same movie (A Pixar film would be perfect for this). Then you have them pick which is which and pay them $20 if they can identify which is which. I would guarantee you that with a properly calibrated Television and an ideal sitting range, that the vast majority could tell you which is which (if they rate it by best, middle, worst picture quality). Whether we debate what the words "Close to" mean or not (which is about the dumbest empty argument you could have), "noticeable" is a much better word. I, like the majority of others, can notice the difference. Jrag and the other people who are, in his words, inferior to those that have better, calibrated (with a ritzy $20 calibration disc) television sets, might not be able to tell the difference- but they are in the minority. Instead of using "close"- use the word "noticeable". And Blu-Ray is a noticeable improvement over iTunes.

Saying that for some people 'even DVD is close enough to Blu-Ray' is almost a joke, if that's your only argument, then why are you even using Apple products and not some cheap-ass knockoff that happens to get the same work done, just more frustratingly. If you lower your standards enough, anything is 'good enough', why stop at DVD if VHS is 'good enough' for many people?

You seem to have taken the argument from 'iTunes content doesn't come close to Blu-Ray content' to 'iTunes content is crap' or 'iTunes content is unwatchable', but that's not the point. I have no problem watching DVD content or low-quality video streams, as long as the content itself is worth watching. But that doesn't mean the video quality is irrelevant or all of a sudden 'almost as good' as something else which is clearly better.

What you're missing is that not everyone shares your perception. To a large percentage of people, streamed 1080p is "almost as good" and blu-ray is not "clearly better".

Note that this isn't asserting that this is true for you or true for everyone. Rather, it is merely acknowledging that people have different perceptions of quality.

Now for a an analogy. I am a beer snob and can tell the difference between Ruination IPA and Triple Hopped Miller Lite. To me the Ruination is "clearly better" and the Miller is not "almost as good". On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to proclaim that everyone shares this perception. Some people can't taste the difference or don't care enough to even notice.

The same could be said in regard to coffee, designer clothing, mp3s and bicycles. It all boils down to personal perception. Quality differences are noticeable to some people but not to others. When discussing topics like this, it is important to be clear if talking about personal preference or average preferences.

What you're missing is that not everyone shares your perception. To a large percentage of people, streamed 1080p is "almost as good" and blu-ray is not "clearly better".

Note that this isn't asserting that this is true for you or true for everyone. Rather, it is merely acknowledging that people have different perceptions of quality.

Now for a an analogy. I am a beer snob and can tell the difference between Ruination IPA and Triple Hopped Miller Lite. To me the Ruination is "clearly better" and the Miller is not "almost as good". On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to proclaim that everyone shares this perception. Some people can't taste the difference or don't care enough to even notice.

The same could be said in regard to coffee, designer clothing, mp3s and bicycles. It all boils down to personal perception. Quality differences are noticeable to some people but not to others. When discussing topics like this, it is important to be clear if talking about personal preference or average preferences.

Hard to disagree with any of that, except that (acquired) taste is something much harder (impossible?) to quantify objectively, while with video quality, this is pretty straightforward.

"the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty"

Apple downloads cost more than renting, that easily falls into those two

From dictionary.com

anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc., as an appliance, utensil, or the like.

If I pay more for something I have to work more to make up that money.

Maybe I should use the british english definition of a water closet? Because the quality of iTunes downloads to a Blu-ray is crap

But you are just incorrect. "Proceed[ing] with something" such as watching a film, is without a doubt less convenient with regards to physical media. If you want to split hairs, fuel, calories and wear on one's sneakers would all potentially push the cost of obtaining and viewing a BluRay disc higher than an iTunes download. The fact that several of you are even making this argument is absurd, and displays a clearly sophomoric grasp of semantics.

I'm not one to proclaim that iTunes is better than BD quality at this point. In fact, I've yet to switch to iTunes media simply because I like having distinct audio channels when watching a lot of movies and TV shows. Your viewing preference aside, please, for the love of all things Holy and Just, don't try to pretend that words have new meaning just to placate your own need to be empirically correct. Especially when the dictionary so clearly cites a much different meaning. Quoting it only makes you appear deluded.

Optical media is dying. Everyday there becomes less and less reasons to continue using optical media or storage. Combine the instant gratification of movie purchases/rentals thru iTunes, the convenience of watching that movie with iCloud from anywhere with a decent internet connection and the 95% quality of BR.. and its a no brainer decision for me.

Where are you getting movies that are 95% quality of BR? No, surely you aren't talking about iTunes downloads? The video certainly isn't 95% of the quality, and the audio quality is no where near the quality of blu-ray.

But you are just incorrect. "Proceed[ing] with something" such as watching a film, is without a doubt less convenient with regards to physical media. If you want to split hairs, fuel, calories and wear on one's sneakers would all potentially push the cost of obtaining and viewing a BluRay disc higher than an iTunes download. The fact that several of you are even making this argument is absurd, and displays a clearly sophomoric grasp of semantics.

Excuse me? How is spending $8 renting an HD from Apple any more convenient, and costly than walking 400m to the video store and renting the same movie on Blu-ray for $4.

Everyone's circumstances are different. Heck I even bike/walk past a video store every day, making getting the blu-ray every more convenient. While we are at it, don't forget the high internet costs, and limited data that I have, it isn't very convenient using most of it to download a couple of movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slang4Art

I'm not one to proclaim that iTunes is better than BD quality at this point. In fact, I've yet to switch to iTunes media simply because I like having distinct audio channels when watching a lot of movies and TV shows. Your viewing preference aside, please, for the love of all things Holy and Just, don't try to pretend that words have new meaning just to placate your own need to be empirically correct. Especially when the dictionary so clearly cites a much different meaning. Quoting it only makes you appear deluded.

While you're at it, don't confuse your circumstances with anyone else's. The dictionary definition more than meets it.

Excuse me? How is spending $8 renting an HD from Apple any more convenient, and costly than walking 400m to the video store and renting the same movie on Blu-ray for $4.

Everyone's circumstances are different. Heck I even bike/walk past a video store every day, making getting the blu-ray every more convenient. While we are at it, don't forget the high internet costs, and limited data that I have, it isn't very convenient using most of it to download a couple of movies.

While you're at it, don't confuse your circumstances with anyone else's. The dictionary definition more than meets it.

You aren't going to convince anyone but yourself and perhaps a few other simpletons that cheaper is the same as convenient. And speaking of biking, you just backpedaled from your own argument. I can be halfway through a movie by the time you return from your sweaty bicycle ride. You're such a fool that you still react as if I'm attacking BluRay. I'm simply stating that you will appear less ignorant, and in fact make a stronger case for your media of choice, if you stop misusing words that most children understand how to use correctly.

You aren't going to convince anyone but yourself and perhaps a few other simpletons that cheaper is the same as convenient. And speaking of biking, you just backpedaled from your own argument. I can be halfway through a movie by the time you return from your sweaty bicycle ride. You're such a fool that you still react as if I'm attacking BluRay. I'm simply stating that you will appear less ignorant, and in fact make a stronger case for your media of choice, if you stop misusing words that most children understand how to use correctly.

Comprehension seems to be your new issue. You can watch half of a movie in under 5 minutes? Yes, it only takes me about 5 minutes to bike the 400m to the video store grab a movie and bike back, you see my local video store is in a convenient location, together with the fact that the price of the blu-rays at my local video store are conventiently cheaper than the iTunes videos.

Different things are convenient to different people, stop being a fool and ignoring the fact that people are different and have different priorities. If all you can do is start with personal insults to try to support you non-existant agrument than maybe you should start thinking a little harder

Umm yes. It's Understandable that a pro-apple site would quote an unknown webpage with no credibility (kind of like digitimes). When cnet or a real place reviews it, then we'll talk. The fact they did it on a 23" monitor, and said Dolby digital 5.1 is comparable to dts-hd is really the biggest joke I've ever heard. Insanity.

Are you referring to the Ars article? If so, where did they compare the audio?

With the very poor quality of movies today, the big hope of the studios would be, I imagine, for consumers to have instant gratification of 1080p video along with the iPad 3 and various mobile, tablet and Mac devices would be great, particularly that other super-high-res screen aka iMac.

Excuse me? Typical AI user, you get challenged by someone and you just start with the insults.

Sorry jfanning- I thought he was replying to jrag at first read- who contributes absolutely nothing. You're a great contributor (whether we agree on things or not)- sorry for getting y'all mixed up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfanning

Are you referring to the Ars article? If so, where did they compare the audio?

After re reading, I obviously misread the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The iTunes download came in at 3.62GB and includes Dolby Digital 5.1 sound as well as a stereo AAC track, and is being compared to the 50GB-capable Blu-Ray Disc which adds a DTS-HD option to the standard Dolby Digital 5.1.

The word "comparable" was obviously still comparing video and I read it as comparing audio. My bad.

You misunderstand. The KB article is about watching iTunes content on AppleTV 2 and 3, and it's pointing out that 1080p won't work on AppleTV 2 (this is no surprise). Macs can play 1080p from iTunes no problem - you have to select 1080p as a preference in iTunes 10.6 preferences.

You are correct that encoders have greatly improved by leaps and bounds. I'm sure that now the software can do a lot of the work that was manually done a few years ago.

Where I disagree with you is in the fact that compression is much an art as it is a science. Encoders have improved on the science, but they will never equal the eye of a trained professional.

In your mind media companies are using the same off the shelf software the rest of us use. This is not true. All of these big media companies are using proprietary encoders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-range

What you are describing is better encoding (apparently optimized manually, which I find very surprising since encoders have very sophisticated algorithms to optimize encoding, that probably beat a human 9 out of 10 times). Since Apple can encode iTunes content with exactly the same encoder and codec for 720p and 1080p, and encoder and codec can be the same as used for Blu-Ray discs, only one factor that matters remains, which is bitrate.

With the very poor quality of movies today, the big hope of the studios would be, I imagine, for consumers to have instant gratification of 1080p video along with the iPad 3 and various mobile, tablet and Mac devices would be great, particularly that other super-high-res screen aka iMac.

Comprehension seems to be your new issue. You can watch half of a movie in under 5 minutes? Yes, it only takes me about 5 minutes to bike the 400m to the video store grab a movie and bike back, you see my local video store is in a convenient location, together with the fact that the price of the blu-rays at my local video store are conventiently cheaper than the iTunes videos.

Different things are convenient to different people, stop being a fool and ignoring the fact that people are different and have different priorities. If all you can do is start with personal insults to try to support you non-existant agrument than maybe you should start thinking a little harder

I've learned over the years that some folks lack either the ability or the inclination to employ basic logic skills when debating. Regardless of which it is in this case, if you truly believe yourself to be my intellectual superior, well then hats off to ye.

I've learned over the years that some folks lack either the ability or the inclination to employ basic logic skills when debating. Regardless of which it is in this case, if you truly believe yourself to be my intellectual superior, well then hats off to ye.

Nice speech.

Now back to topic, how is giving Apple $8 to rent a video any more convenient for me than going 400m to get the same movie on Blu-ray for $3.33 (the rental price I paid yesterday for a blu-ray).

Note update:1080p content is only compatible with iPad (3rd generation), Apple TV (3rd generation), and computers that meet the minimum system requirements. HD content purchased directly on iPad 2 or earlier will continue to download in 720p. You may still download the 1080p version using the Purchased page on your computer based on availability.